|
|
Post by millring on Jun 28, 2024 15:03:50 GMT -5
. But ego lives strong in politicians and sports figures, long after they should retire.) Well, Nixon resigned. I doubt that egos get much bigger than that. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 28, 2024 16:42:05 GMT -5
Serves 'em right. The leftists just couldn't stop when they were miles ahead. Peter, I think the idea of regulation to ensure that we have clean air and water goes beyond the politics of the Left and the Right. Corporations will stop at nothing to maximize profits and minimize expenditures.
Howard, there's pollution and then there's CO2. And they aren't the same. The leftists have run this global warming BS as far as it can go, and now their hubris has blown up in their faces. Guess what most of what that smoke is? Carbon Dioxide, water, and Nitrogen (which is also 78% of the earth's atmosphere). The vast majority (>99%) of those clouds aren't pollution. You've been duped. Unfortunately your side's hubris has also exposed the inherent weaknesses of the Clean Air Act and the destruction may not be constrained to CO2. But y'all should have thought of that 40 years ago. Remember, hubris. It's never been pretty. |
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Jun 28, 2024 16:46:13 GMT -5
Peter, I think the idea of regulation to ensure that we have clean air and water goes beyond the politics of the Left and the Right. Corporations will stop at nothing to maximize profits and minimize expenditures.
Howard, there's pollution and then there's CO2. And they aren't the same. The leftists have run this global warming BS as far as it can go, and now their hubris has blown up in their faces. Guess what most of what that smoke is? Carbon Dioxide, water, and Nitrogen (which is also 78% of the earth's atmosphere). The vast majority (>99%) of those clouds aren't pollution. You've been duped. Unfortunately your side's hubris has also exposed the inherent weaknesses of the Clean Air Act and the destruction may not be constrained to CO2. But y'all should have thought of that 40 years ago. Remember, hubris. It's never been pretty.
I just worked out a really nice solo for the Bob Wills tune "Got a Letter from My Kid Today."
On my Kellycaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jun 28, 2024 16:51:50 GMT -5
Also, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by Joe's performance. Why do you suppose anyone is? That tells me, very clearly, that the news that the news they choose to consume has deliberately HID Joe's from their audience. Compared to what I've seen from the President I thought he performed better than I expected. I grieve for our country |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 28, 2024 17:41:43 GMT -5
I doubt that Biden will listen to my advice but he'll care about what the NY Times editorial board is saying.
"[T]he greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election....If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee."
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 28, 2024 17:45:58 GMT -5
"[T]he greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election....If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee." There are four main reasons I still believe the 2020 election was fixed. This is perhaps the biggest. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 28, 2024 18:05:00 GMT -5
"There are four main reasons I still believe the 2020 election was fixed. This is perhaps the biggest."
I don't understand what "this" refers to.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 28, 2024 18:14:42 GMT -5
"There are four main reasons I still believe the 2020 election was fixed. This is perhaps the biggest." I don't understand what "this" refers to. The fear of a Trump presidency. I've heard that kind of talk in hyperbole all my life. We all have. But this is different. People -- educated, powerful,connected, people believe that a Trump presidency is the end of the country as they know it. That's new. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 28, 2024 18:35:37 GMT -5
Lots of talk about Chevron. But, the actual case that started the whole business, and the actual case the Supreme Court decided, was about a couple groups of fishermen who made their living catching herring. And the actual case itself should matter and should be part of the discussion.
In 2020 a Federal agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, required that every herring boat that went to sea, regardless of size, had to have a Federal Monitor on board to inspect their catch AND, based on their interpretation of a 1976 law, the agency required the operators of the fishing boats to pay for the cost of having this monitor on their boat.
WTH? This Federal Agency not only decreed that the fishermen had to have a monitor taking up on space on their boat to keep an eye on them, they had pay for the guy out of their own pocket. Average cost to a herring boat for this federally required monitor? $700 a day per boat.
These are small boats; small independent owner operators barely getting by in many cases (we’re talking herring here, they aren’t rolling in dough). And not only has the Feds made them put some extra guy on their boat who’s taking up space and not working, but they have to pay the government $700 every time they put to sea for the pleasure of his useless to them company.
Try get your head around that. At least when the Kremlin puts one of their political officers on a boat, they don’t ask the boat's crew to pay for his training and salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 28, 2024 18:54:18 GMT -5
Anyway, that’s what started business.
The boat owners didn’t object to having a monitor on board. They objected to having pay for the monitor out of their own pocket. So they sued Feds. Their argument was that if the Feds wanted to put a monitor on their boat to check up on them, then the Feds should pay for him.
They lost in court. Appealed and lost again. The courts in each case said the fishermen’s case was reasonable, but since it wasn’t clear in the relevant legislation who should pay for the monitor, they, the court, had to pull a Chevron and defer to the interpretation of the unclear law as offered by the Fisheries Department as their interpretation of the unclear law also had basis. With Chevron, tie goes to the Feds… and they start with a 20 point cushion.
Somehow, the herring fishers' appeal made it to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court ruled that in situations left unclear by the relevant law, the Chevron precedence required the courts to give too much deference to the decisions made by a federal agency in a legal action challenging the ruling of that same federal agency (no more 20 point cushion). So they dumped it.
All the noise aside, I’m glad the Fishermen won their case. Of course, they’ve all gone broke and the monitor program has been scrapped. So it goes.
How this ruling will affect cases going forward is unclear. There is reason to believe that Chevron was becoming less and less relevant in cases both present and future*. Chevron was on its way out the window as a judicial factor prior to this ruling. I believe both sides are over-reacting. There is less to celebrate, less to fear.
*Chevron only applied when the court accepted that the agency in question had a reasonable basis in making their ruling. If the court believes the regulatory agency’s interpretation to be unreasonable, then there is no judicial deference to the agency and Chevron isn’t in play. Courts have been overruling regulatory agencies whenever they wanted to for some time now.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 28, 2024 20:35:37 GMT -5
"[T]he greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election....If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee." There are four main reasons I still believe the 2020 election was fixed. This is perhaps the biggest. But, John, this editorial wasn't written in 2016. Nor was it written in 2020. It was written yesterday in response to Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election and his refusal to say he would honor the result of the upcoming election. It was written yesterday in response to Trump's four years of continually insisting our election was fixed; written in response to his claims that our citizen-run elections, our local oversight mechanisms, and our judicial system that ruled on his election charges and found them empty, are all fraudulent and crooked. To many, it can, and does, appear that Trump is attacking our democratic processes, in short, our democracy. I think your argument has put the cart before the horse. This Times editorial isn't a time machine call to commit election fraud in 2020. It is a real time response in 2024 to the last four years of Trump's persistent claims of election fraud and systemic corruption in our democratic electoral institutions at every level they exist. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 28, 2024 22:24:40 GMT -5
Anyway, that’s what started business. The boat owners didn’t object to having a monitor on board. They objected to having pay for the monitor out of their own pocket. So they sued Feds. Their argument was that if the Feds wanted to put a monitor on their boat to check up on them, then the Feds should pay for him. They lost in court. Appealed and lost again. The courts in each case said the fishermen’s case was reasonable, but since it wasn’t clear in the relevant legislation who should pay for the monitor, they, the court, had to pull a Chevron and defer to the interpretation of the unclear law as offered by the Fisheries Department as their interpretation of the unclear law also had basis. With Chevron, tie goes to the Feds… and they start with a 20 point cushion. Somehow, the herring fishers' appeal made it to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court ruled that in situations left unclear by the relevant law, the Chevron precedence required the courts to give too much deference to the decisions made by a federal agency in a legal action challenging the ruling of that same federal agency (no more 20 point cushion). So they dumped it. All the noise aside, I’m glad the Fishermen won their case. Of course, they’ve all gone broke and the monitor program has been scrapped. So it goes. How this ruling will affect cases going forward is unclear. There is reason to believe that Chevron was becoming less and less relevant in cases both present and future*. Chevron was on its way out the window as a judicial factor prior to this ruling. I believe both sides are over-reacting. There is less to celebrate, less to fear. *Chevron only applied when the court accepted that the agency in question had a reasonable basis in making their ruling. If the court believes the regulatory agency’s interpretation to be unreasonable, then there is no judicial deference to the agency and Chevron isn’t in play. Courts have been overruling regulatory agencies whenever they wanted to for some time now. Chevron Deference has developed into a major precedent. It's been referenced 70 times in 40 years, more than any other case in history. The reason it rarely gets invoked anymore (last time was 2016) is that it's become a major deterrent to even filing a case. You know you're going to lose going in. Tends to put a damper on enthusiasm. And it's not too difficult to see where it's going. The biggest and most obvious target is the EPA and militant environmentalism. Chevron lost to NRDC for instance. And the big fish is EPA's CO2 regulation granted to it through 2007's Massachusetts v. EPA which made CO2 an EPA regulated substance. It's not clear yet if Massachusetts falls automatically because Chevron has fallen, but in the last few months at least a half dozen lawsuits have been filed by folks like the oil companies and light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers anticipating Chevron's fall and champing at the bit to use EPA's losing arguments (yeah, they lost Massachusetts, cookie cutter legal arguments are already available from that effort) against them. When Massachusetts falls, all kinds of major things can, and likely will, happen: 1. The mandate for EVs evaporates along with any serious market. 2. Tesla has stolen $9 billion from ICE competitors over the last several years just for existing. This is due to EPA's credit trading regulatory program that's currently mandating about 60% of all new vehicles sold be EVs by 2032 (on the way to 100% by 2035). That'll put them right back to not being able to turn a profit. Wonder if they'll survive? Wonder if any EV manufacturers will survive. 3. The US will no longer be able to meet its Paris Accord commitments. Since that's not an actual treaty, there's no enforcement mechanism. Look to that whole IPCC baloney to evaporate rapidly once the US can't participate and contribute money. 4. Look for the return of incandescent lights and the continued health of the gas stove industry. 5. The national power grid will return to a position where system reliability once again rises to the operational priority and all kinds of fossil fuels rebound. And offshore windmills that kill whales vanish. 6. Since SEC v. Jarkesy was also decided yesterday, EPA should lose their ability to just impose outrageous fines at their own discretion. Sorry you bastards, you can't just lead with bankruptcy and negotiate back from there. Now you'll have to get a court to agree. 7. Massachusetts also highlighted the sketchy structure of the Clean Air Act at its core. If all it takes to make CO2 a pollutant is for the current administration, whoever they are, to decide to do it and write up and file some kind of random, unreviewed endangerment finding, maybe the whole authority to regulate anything is deeply suspect and won't stand up to a legal challenge. If so, it couldn't happen to a nastier bunch of pricks. And finally, this isn't limited to EPA. This applies to all kinds of Executive agencies. I just don't know those agencies. Should be fun to watch. Death to the Deep State! |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 28, 2024 23:46:40 GMT -5
If Chevron were still in place, the Supreme Court could still rule against the EPA in Massachusetts simply by determining the EPA exceeded its authority and acted without reasonable basis in existing law.
The determination of what "reasonable basis" is is up to the court itself and none other. This is especially, end of the road, true with the Supreme Court, which, as we have clearly seen, can and will find reasoned justification for whatever it wishes to find reasoned justification for. There is reasoned legal justification for the majority and there is reasoned legal justification for the dissent. If Massachusetts gets to this court, it will rule as it wishes to rule, the presence or absence of Chevron is a non-factor.
Something I will never forget...
A few years ago, the natural resources departments of Minnesota and Wisconsin developed a joint Timberwolf management plan based on an extended multi-year study of their populations in the two states. As the plan included provisions for a limited hunt in certain areas when the increasing Timberwolf population called for it, the management plan put together by the two states was sued by a number of groups.
The lawsuit ended up in a Federal Court in New York. The judge ruled against the joint management plan put together by natural resource management agencies of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Her judgement stated that while the research on the wolf populations in the two states indicated that the wolf populations in Minnesota and Wisconsin could support a limited hunt, the management proposal was not reasonable or justifiable because it did not consider that the restoration of the historic (?) wolf populations in states such as Ohio and Indiana would require a migration of excess wolves from Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The two states threw up their hands and gave up on the management plan they had jointly spent five years developing. And I understood clearly that judicially, what is reasonable is whatever a judge says is reasonable.
It was reasonable to the judge that wolf populations in this country were not secure until states like Indiana and Ohio, as they exist today, can sustain wolf populations equal to what the suing groups claimed they might have had in some undetermined historic period... like the 1700s? That is not fucking reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 29, 2024 3:39:00 GMT -5
There are four main reasons I still believe the 2020 election was fixed. This is perhaps the biggest. But, John, this editorial wasn't written in 2016. Nor was it written in 2020. It was written yesterday in response to Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election and his refusal to say he would honor the result of the upcoming election. It was written yesterday in response to Trump's four years of continually insisting our election was fixed; written in response to his claims that our citizen-run elections, our local oversight mechanisms, and our judicial system that ruled on his election charges and found them empty, are all fraudulent and crooked. To many, it can, and does, appear that Trump is attacking our democratic processes, in short, our democracy. I think your argument has put the cart before the horse. This Times editorial isn't a time machine call to commit election fraud in 2020. It is a real time response in 2024 to the last four years of Trump's persistent claims of election fraud and systemic corruption in our democratic electoral institutions at every level they exist. The exact sentiment was present and a driving force in 2020. These people believe they are literally "saving democracy". |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 29, 2024 7:36:45 GMT -5
But, John, in many of the swing states the election officials were Republican. How does that fit into your conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 29, 2024 7:38:38 GMT -5
I doubt that Biden will listen to my advice but he'll care about what the NY Times editorial board is saying. "[T]he greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election....If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee." Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 29, 2024 7:43:52 GMT -5
As for Chevron, I never thought that was a very sensible rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 29, 2024 8:21:27 GMT -5
If Chevron were still in place, the Supreme Court could still rule against the EPA in Massachusetts simply by determining the EPA exceeded its authority and acted without reasonable basis in existing law. That's the bizarre part of Massachusetts. EPA's entire defense was that they didn't have authority. And they were overruled. It's toast now that the driver of that overruling is overturned. It's only a matter of time now. |
|
|
|
Post by kbcolorado on Jun 29, 2024 8:42:48 GMT -5
But, John, this editorial wasn't written in 2016. Nor was it written in 2020. It was written yesterday in response to Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election and his refusal to say he would honor the result of the upcoming election. It was written yesterday in response to Trump's four years of continually insisting our election was fixed; written in response to his claims that our citizen-run elections, our local oversight mechanisms, and our judicial system that ruled on his election charges and found them empty, are all fraudulent and crooked. To many, it can, and does, appear that Trump is attacking our democratic processes, in short, our democracy. I think your argument has put the cart before the horse. This Times editorial isn't a time machine call to commit election fraud in 2020. It is a real time response in 2024 to the last four years of Trump's persistent claims of election fraud and systemic corruption in our democratic electoral institutions at every level they exist. The exact sentiment was present and a driving force in 2020. These people believe they are literally "saving democracy".
While the argument of "saving democracy" may have been a combination of hyperbole/speculation before Nov 2020, what happened right after the election (culminating in Jan 6) made it reality. The single feature of the new American experiment that set it apart from what had come before was the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next. Historically, all differences were set aside during this time as the outgoing administration cooperated with the new folks ... for the benefit of the country.
Donald Trump blew that **** right out of the water. And now he wants to be in a position to do it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 29, 2024 9:12:22 GMT -5
But, John, in many of the swing states the election officials were Republican. How does that fit into your conspiracy. 1. It's not a conspiracy. 2. Republicans have always been against Trump. I'm on my phone or I'd explain myself more. |
|
